Parker Noland is not the typical 23 year-old Montanan. Noland joined the United States Army after graduating high school and, after honorable discharge from the service, returned home and decided to serve his community as an entrepreneur. Driving around Kalispell, Montana, Noland noticed that late garbage pickups resulted in dumpster pileups at local construction sites, inconveniencing the projects there. He drafted a business plan, secured a loan to purchase a truck and some dumpsters, and posted ads for trash-hauling services. But before he could get his business off the ground, the Montana Public Service Commission issued a cease-and-desist order.

Under Montana’s licensure regime, new companies like Noland’s must obtain a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” from the Public Service Commission before offering hauling services. State law also allows incumbent firms to protest new applications. So, when Noland applied for a certificate, two large potential competitors protested and initiated private investigations of Noland’s company.

Unable to afford a protracted and intrusive regulatory battle, Noland withdrew his application, retained the Pacific Legal Foundation to represent him, and sued the state for violating his fundamental right to pursue employment. The district court rejected Noland’s facial challenge because the licensure system is not a complete bar to new trash hauling companies (even though it can be a nearly insurmountable one).

Now Noland seeks review from the Montana Supreme Court, and Cato has joined the Mountain States Legal Foundation to file an amicus brief in support of Noland.

The Montana constitution protects “the right to the opportunity to pursue employment.” Where, as here, the administrative process for approving applicants’ employment is conditional, burdensome, and opaque, applicants should be able to bring a facial challenge. Here, Noland was clearly subjected to the restraints of a licensing law that burdened his fundamental right to pursue employment. Montana’s licensing regime also disincentivizes other fledgling entrepreneurs from even attempting to enter the market.

Further, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states may not arbitrarily or irrationally abridge liberty, including economic liberty. As the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has said, “naked economic preferences are impermissible to the extent that they harm consumers.” Because Montana’s licensure statute is plainly protectionist and because competition in trash hauling would benefit residents and businesses, the licensing regime lacks a legitimate governmental interest. Noland should be able to challenge the law.

The district court erred in dismissing Noland’s facial challenge to the arbitrary licensing regime and the Montana Supreme Court should vindicate Noland’s right to pursue employment. The Court should rule in Noland’s favor and allow his lawsuit to proceed.